I’m still trying to work my way through my discomfort and analyze exactly where my discomfort of this Sociological Images post is coming from, so if this critique seems a bit scattered, it’s because my thoughts about it, at the moment, are that way.

First: I agree with where the post is coming from, in that the disenfranchised rarely ever have a voice of their own in mainstream Western culture, are always portrayed as the Other, which is defined as everything that said mainstream Western culture isn’t (at best as something that props it up and provides an aesthetically pleasing contrast, at worst as something that must be exterminated). And this leads to remarkably similar cycles of dehumanization and disenfranchisement. As so many minority thinkers/activists have noted, manufactured binaries between the privileged West and everyone else, even seemingly positive ones, ultimately end up reinforcing destructive hierarchies.

Where I disagree with the poster is the framing, which I feel makes the post, in some ways, as reductive as what it’s critiquing. Because there are different contexts in which the above cycle/process of exotification occurs, and those contexts matter and shouldn’t be handwaved, even (and I would say especially) if you’re taking the pov of the white outsider and attempting to deconstruct it. Social justice discourse loses its meaning when it becomes divorced from one of power relations.

In this specific example, while making its comparison of India as a magical negro, the post fails to both note and appreciate the following bits of context:

That both the main white actress and the main desi actor in the film are British, with Dev Patel adopting an Indian accent and playing the part of a “native”. That all the featured Indian characters are coded as middle/upper class (the dress, able to speak fluent English, etc) and light skinned. That in many ways this is how India is actively marketed by its tourism sector (and also its government. Did a project once which involved collecting promo material from the Indian consul — I think in Chicago? — and it was quite hilariously illuminating), because they’ve judged that this type of pandering will bring in the tourist dollars.

And this exotification of India in the West has been happening since before the time of Columbus, and reducing said things to a “phenomenon in which a white character in a tv show or movie finds enlightenment…” seems rather glib. (Just because it appears in tvtropes does not mean TV created it!) And that’s not even getting into how most isms seem to inevitably become just like the racism that blacks (had) face(d) in the US.

I also thought it was telling how none of the links elaborating on the “magical negro” trope went to one of the many black writers who’ve done the major work of deconstructing and dissecting it, much less linking to desi writers talking about colonialism and othering.

So what my disagreement boils down to, I think, is this: that this is a discussion about the Othering/exotification of India in mainstream Western culture that succeeds in further marginalizing/disenfranchising desis and other minorities. It doesn’t consider that we might be among the audience for this post (much less making room in the conversation for us, much less acknowledging all the times we’ve already discussed this), and in the way it takes something that rose out of certain contexts, misidentifies said contexts while applying it to different ones with no mention of the consequences of the differences, makes it, again, similar to what it’s aiming to critique.

And it brings home the point that, for all its social justice aims, this is a blog for a specific group of white people, by a specific group of white people, with all the marginalizations that entails.

Another note: it is interesting to read the comments, to see all the places East/West binaries crop up. For example, this comment (which thankfully was critiqued):

So, this is probably why you’ll never find a movie about a Westerner in Latvia trying to find himself- “finding oneself” usually requires immersing oneself in a setting completely different from the everyday humdrum norm.

I do find India humdrum normy, actually. And infrastructure specifically designed to ape the west is increasingly common in cities, and you can always find people in the touristy parts who speak English and cater to Western tastes in a thousand and one ways. (Actually, you won’t need to find them, if you are white they will find you and you will not be able to escape them!) Latvia, I am assuming not so much?

I feel as if the manufactured differences that so many Westerners create for India, while completely missing the deeper and more significant ones, are part of the same binary that Fanon was talking about when he said: “The settler is all that is good and of value. The native is the negation of the settler’s value”. And a lot of the appeal of India, the reason for it not being “everyday humdrum normy”, is that it still gives middle class white Westerners who go there chances to personally experience the colonial British sahib lifestyle.

Comments 23

Anonymous — March 6, 2012

Great meta-analysis of the "Soc Images culture" for lack of better shorthand.

Buck — March 6, 2012

Before everyone rushes to denounce this as an attack, please step back and think about it for a while.

Anonymous — March 6, 2012

I loved this on racialicious, and I love it here, too.

Sara343 — March 6, 2012

Bingo! I'd go a few steps further: As a white person, who regularly reads blogs written by a specific group of white people for specific white people like me, I often need to remind myself when reading this blog that it _isn't_ a parody of the sort of liberal sensibility that hasn't been defensible since (at least) the Black Power critique of the mid-1960s. And things regularly take definite turn for the worse when anything other than the contemporary United States is discussed. And then I'd go even a few steps further: The post doesn't consider that desis themselves might be among the audience for the film, nor that many desis also jump at the chance to "personally experience the colonial British sahib lifestyle." Ever been to Gurgaon, Colorblue?

Anonymous — March 6, 2012

"And it brings home the point that, for all its social justice aims, this
is a blog for a specific group of white people, by a specific group of
white people, with all the marginalizations that entails."

This little snip perfectly sums up the icky feeling SocImages gives me on the regular. Many articles try too hard and rely too much on evidence sorting, but wind up falling into the same traps of prejudice and assumption as the targets of their vitriol.

sona — March 6, 2012

entire country as "magical negro." this western hegemony bullshit gotta stop!

Cocojams Jambalayah — March 6, 2012

I'm re-posting the comment that I wrote on that Racialicious thread because I don't want it to seem that I was talking about this blog there but am hiding what I wrote here.

"[Sociological Images is a blog for a specific group of white people, by a specific group of white people, with all the marginalizations that entails."

I learned about Sociological Images last year because of a post from that site that was crossposted on Racialicious. Since that time, I have periodically commented on that blog. first under my name Azizi, and later when that blog switched to Disquis, under my facebook name that I also use. There is at least one other Black American, Tusconian, who I believe commented there before I started to do so and still omments there more frequently than me.

I only comment there sparingly now because my sense is that Sociological Images is much more focused on feminism and gender issues than it is on race, and while those subjects can be interesting, and important, and often intersect with race, those topics usually aren't something I want to comment on.

I also comment on Sociological Images less often now because when the moderators post about race, in my opinion, the subject selected and/or the treatment of the selected subject is often rather shallow or not as culturally competent as one would expect given that at least one of the moderators teaches Black Studies on the university level. I (and others) have shared my (our) concerns about the treatment of race and racism on that blog, so my opinion that I'm articulating here isn't something the moderators or bloggers aren't aware of.That said, I believe that a considerable number of persons who comment on that blog sincerely want to understand race & racism. And, in my opinion, some of the "regular" commenters do understand the impact of White priviledge and are culturally competent. But that site really needs more People of Color to comment there and guest post there.

[Full Disclosure: I had a post (on Stomp & Shake Cheerleading) posted on Sociological Images. There have been a number of other posts by People of Color published on that site long before and since my post. I'd love to see more crossposting from Racialicious to Sociological Images and I'd love to see more of the Racialicious community support the race & racism (and other) posts that are published on Sociological Images]

Anonymous — March 7, 2012

I hope this means that there's going to be mor contributors outside the white middle class straight cis etc. demographic. This post and comments really shows how nessesary it is to keep the posts on these subjects deeper than the shallowest possible

Amias Maldonado — March 7, 2012

I agreed with colorblue's opinion when I read it on In Transit in the first place. However, I want to caution against reifying a racialized identity onto Soc Images. On the one hand, we should recognize the position and identity of Soc Images and its readers, but on the other, we shouldn't make that position any more calcified than it needs to. Because this is a blog connected to ASA, it will likely have a certain classed and nation perspective, because "cultural images and power" is often found in gendered cultural producations, it will likely have more women or feminists posting. That's simply the discursive place this blog occupies. However, I think the sheer fact that SocImages is willing to put a critical analysis such as this on their blog shows that this IS an inclusive space: it need not be a blog "for" a specific group of white people. In terms of production on this blog, I don't have any evidence that Gwen and Lisa are anything but welcoming in terms of diversifying the dialogue. In terms of consumption, in cyberspace the only gatekeeper is what you choose to click on.

In sum, couldn't agree more with colorblue's analysis, but in terms of making this blog a space for and by people that are not white intellectuals, I think we need to continue to "be the change we seek." We can't diversify the discourse without continuing to open up our mouths, as colorblue has done. Again, my intent is not to look at the situation with rose colored glasses but to encourage praxis towards changing the space if people so desire, because I think that's totally possible and in line with the original intent of the blog

Aho — March 7, 2012

I think this post by Colorblue might have a valid point in suggesting the general tendencies of Soc Images involving, mainstream (white, yes), academic (white, yes), and quick (yes, that's blog for you). However, Colorblue's point about the particular post regarding 'magic negro' is vague and potentially misdirected. The original post wasn't about Orientalist othering or exoticism at all (for which Soc Images has posted many other). It was a simple suggestion about the intersection between 'magic negro' and the movie, no more, no less.

Anonymous — March 8, 2012

I take extreme offense to the implication that blacks no longer face racism in the US. Horizontal oppression is not acceptable.

Anna Geletka — March 9, 2012

I love this post and hopefully the new direction it may represent on this blog. SocImages is one of my favorite sites and I often use posts as examples in my course on Cultural Diversity, which includes discussions on race as well as gender, sexual orientation, ageism, ableism, and other minority/majority dynamics (yes, it's a lot to pack in to one course). I find the blog to be useful, especially for gender related issues, but I do sometimes cringe at specific posts. I love to see some critique.

Gita Navarro — March 15, 2012

Seeing all "white" people as the same seems racist to me. I have lived in Britain and in the U.S. and "white" is not always the same. Skin colour in this movie seems less important than the fact that they are British, with British attitudes and British world views. It pokes fun of the British. Had the people been American, it would have been a completely different movie.

In case anyone doesn't realize this, India has other actors besides Dev Patel. I'd love to see some of them in English-speaking movies!